Piracy was NEVER stealing
It doesn't matter if it's a CD, a Film, or manual with the instructions to build a spaceship. If you copy it, the original owner doesn't lose anything. If you don't copy it, the only one missing something (the experience) is YOU.
Enjoy!
Of course, if you happen to have some extra money for donations to creators, please do so. If you don't have that, try contributing with a review somewhere or recommending the content, spread the word. Piracy was shown to drive businesses in several occasions by independent and biased corps (trying to show the opposite).
Devil’s advocate: “If you copy it, the [original] owner doesn’t lose anything…”
They loose the right to distribute it or not distribute it to who they choose. As the owner, it’s technically their right to deny access to the work, and you are taking that right away from them.
I’m not a shill, and I am never going to be a customer of big media. If I can’t get it without charge, I’d rather go without. But, I am taking that right away from the owner. I sleep ok.
Based on this interpretation libraries are stealing from book publishers and food banks are stealing from grocery stores.
Libraries and food banks have their inventory paid for, though. Neither one of them accepts stolen goods. What are you talking about?
So if I torrent something from someone who paid for it, it's like checking it out from a library's collection and not piracy. Got it.
/s?
You’re right, it’s not a perfect analogy. I was more pushing back against the supposition that the depravation of a potential sale equates to theft.
That said, media that is pirated comes from somewhere. Many times that content is ripped from streaming providers directly, which means someone has paid for the content initially. Other times the content is ripped off a blu-ray, which also means someone has paid for the content already. Cam recordings require someone to pay for a ticket (or someone to work at a theater but at that point we’re getting in to semantics).
At this point I’ve completely lost the context of what we’re even discussing here. Oh, right. OP said piracy isn’t stealing. Stealing/theft/larceny requires real property to be taken from its owner. Digital piracy does not meet that definition, full stop. OP is technically correct. Is it copyright infringement? Sure. Is that moral? Idk, I can’t dictate your morals but I don’t have any moral objection to it myself.
Technically, they are, as they also deny them the option to distribute books and food.
"Books" and "food" are not someone's intellectual property so that's okay. If brand A were to sell "BRAND B SUPER FOOD" (let's assume this is a known brand of Brand B), that would very much be problematic.
In the case of books, if you wrote the "super personal top secret book" and a library somehow got a copy without your permission and made it public, you'd be pissed too and they'd deny your right to distribute or not distribute.
What? No. Denying the option to distribute something is not theft.
Your point about Brand A selling something named a derivative of Brand B makes me think there’s a misunderstanding here. This would fall under the realm of trademark violation, which I wasn’t aware was being discussed.
I’d be pissed that the library somehow stole the physical book from me or that they hacked into my computer and stole the books manuscript file from me, which both would be examples of actual theft. If I sold the library the physical book and an epub version with DRM, the library removed the DRM, then began loaning out the DRM-stripped epub I could potentially be mad, but it certainly would not be because of theft because no theft would have occurred in that scenario.
They never said it was theft. Its taking away a "right"(CONTROLLING distribution, being able to DENY it to some) that should not BE a "right". Saying grocers have the right to deny food they were going to throw away to those who would eat it is little different than saying Israel has the right to deny the entry of aid in the form or food and/or medical supplies into Gaza.
It's a "right" to FORCE people to starve, and to FORCE others to let them starve. "Right"? Its no such thing.
My bad, you’re right they did not. In the context of the OP and the quote used in the top level reply, “the owner doesn’t lose anything” clearly means “the owner does not lose a physical good or object”.
Ok, I’m losing the thread here. I’m not really sure what this has to do with piracy or whether piracy constitutes theft at this point. If you’re trying to draw an analogy between two situations I’m just not understanding it.
Not an analogy, a parallel. Israel literally prefers that food be left to rot or dumped at sea rather than reaching "certain" people who need it.
Again, not seeing how this parallel really applies to the conversation at hand?
That right is something they should not have. Streaming services greenlight shows, get them made, then cancel them after two seasons to prevent artists getting residuals.
Then if they lose popularity they pull them off the site and even the people who worked on them can't see them anymore. Animators have to rely on piracy just to show people their own portfolio. That's where respecting copyright leads.
The copyright owner is just whoever fronted the money, and the only reason we've decided they "own" anything is because people with money have decided money should be the most important thing in our society.
Perfect example of this is the movie Dogma. Kevin Smith has stated he would love to do a follow up on it, but he as the creator can't because the IP is owned personally by Harvey Weinstein, and he refuses to give money to Harvey to license or buy it because obvious reasons. So, his own creation is locked away from him because a monster put up the money for the original before Kevin or most people knew they were a monster.
Yup, copyright doesn't help artists. Its main purpose is to allow the hoarding of property into the hands of the wealthy, just like basically every other property relation under capitalism.
We can see with things like patreon that people love to support artists they like even if most of their work is free. We really don't need gatekeepers to make art happen.
They still have the right to distribute it. It's not like reddit, who not only claim the right but also apparently claim ownership of any content you publish there, while providing no consideration (payment) in return.
However, as you say, they have the right to deny you, and by copying you are subverting their rights. That's still not theft, though, which is why copyright infringement is a separate offense.
Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil matter.
That's not entirely true.
The payment is hosting your content for free on their servers that provide reasonable uptime and unlimited retention. You can choose to carve out your own place on the internet and post your content on your own hosting if you want, but a lot of people choose Reddit, or Facebook, or Instagram, or Snapchat, because the tradeoff is agreeable.
A lot of people choose those sites because they don't understand the trade off, because the site is presented as "free of charge" while the exchange of your data is a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print of the terms and conditions. It is NOT and exchange of data for access to the service, not at the point of sale, not the way they present it.
There is also a nuance in that you have to grant them rights to your work in order for them to legitimately host the material. This is essential, but they use it as an opportunity to claim far more rights than are necessary, without any fair exchange.
The “right to control distribution” is utterly unenforceable in a world with computers and the internet. The only way to enforce that right is to have centralized institutions with absolute control over every computer.
I can understand a need for controlling personal information in order to protect the user privacy. I can even get behind the idea of having to control dangerous information, like schematics for nuclear weapon systems. I do not support the idea of moving towards a world where the NSA has a rootkit on every computer because capitalism can’t be bothered that artists make enough to eat.
Maybe there is an inherent problem with a social system in which so many people struggle to make a living. And maybe the solution isn’t to create artificial scarcity in computer systems where information can be shared freely.
Is it actually ethically acceptable to control distribution of something that naturally shares itself?
Before computers, it actually required some energy to copy the content of a book. With computers now, the action of reading an ebook will actually copy it from the hard drive to the ram. If your book is on the cloud, there's even more copying going on. It actually takes more efforts to erase temporary copies (ex: from local cache)!
Digital copying is not the same as physical copying.
For anyone that isn’t aware, this is the logical argument used in Cory Doctorow’s book Information Doesn’t Want To Be Free, which you can get an ebook of for free on his site.
At last we were able to create the Torment Nexus...
good, i hope it happens
their endless nickel and dimeling shows thay have grown way too complacent
hopefully better people will replace them
This is one of the few actually interesting counterpoints to piracy. The rights of the artist for the use of their work is a very nuanced topic. For instance, most people would say that parody and satire are very important forms of expression that ought to be protected. But those often dance the line of "infringement" in the eyes of the courts.
On the other hand, it feels wrong to say that an artist has to accept their work being used for evil purposes, like a group of neo-nazis using an open source font in their propaganda materials, or a group of religious extremists using a musician's backing track in their efforts to convert people.
I lean pretty strongly for the rights of the consumers of art to do with it what they want, but I admit it gives me pause on some of the edge cases. Very complicated issue.
The problem is that when everyone is using their right to deny access to their works to make people give them money, and there is only so much money you can reasonably spend on entertainment and so on per month, people end up abstaining from a lot of things they could otherwise have taken part in for no extra cost.
I think that the things we pirate have a value: music, movies and games have a value because they are cultural products and vulture is important, software like photoshop has a value because it is a useful tool. Putting up barriers to accessing these things means destroying this value. Having a system where the main way to make money of e.g. music is to paywall it has the "destruction" of a lot of value as its outcome. In some ways streaming platforms like spotify are better in this regard but then that means giving the platform a lot of power over music discovery for example. Spotify doesn't really do a good job of paying its artists either which is its supposed ethical advantage over piracy.
They already lost that right when they gave their product over to a licensor or distributor. Especially more in some industries such as book publishing.
Using the term "piracy", instead of "filesharing", was always pro-corporate framing. In his 2010 essay "Ending the War on Sharing", Richard Stallman wrote:
non-commercial file sharing is not piracy, the industry just re-defined it because they don't want anyone to share stuff.
At this point digitally downloading things needs to just stop being called piracy and start being called digital archival. WiFi went down, luckily I have my digital archive.
All the people who made the content already got paid for their hours in large media. If you're pirating from a studio that is 1 to 10 people you probably know that and probably know it's lame. The money we're paying to view/listen is literally just the corporation trying to "make money back", even though the CEO and execs are probably a few tonnes richer than the rest of us, and the regular working class is getting paid hourly.
We've really got to be moving away from restricting knowledge, honestly even the idea of a $/hr type thing. Imaging being charged 15c every time you heard 40 seconds of a song or TV show. I like the idea of artists being paid royalties but our current system is such a scam with us, the core creator, getting hardly anything after the corporations get their cut. FFS, audiobook producers get more share of royalties than musicians do (most audiobooks are ~40% royalty share and musicians are lucky to get 25%.
It's hard as an artist. I want to be able to make money off my music, and be able to live from just that. The very real reality is that piracy (digital archival) would have almost ZERO affect on me due to the scale of it. People would be more likely to hear about me through its word of mouth than they are currently trying to buy my music with my advertising (none). I'm also not making music for money, but so that it can be listened to. Making money from it is more of a benefit than the goal, despite how nice it would be to do nothing but make music.
So, really, if I am hardly affected by people archiving my work, why in the fuck would HBO be? And if it were true, why would they remove hundreds of movies and shows from their service, lost forever. How are the royalties from those being lost when I archive it?
No, there is none.
There is only one reason to not digitally archive something. One alone.
Metrics.
If you like something and you want it to survive, fucking pay to watch it. I love It's Always Sunny. I have all of it archived, and mostly watch it there. But I will put money into Hulu once in a while just to stream Sunny, for the new season, for whatever. Because those guys have more hours of my life than any other show, and I want them to be able to continue making it, and they can only do that if FX sees that enough people watch them to justify continuing. I don't agree with everything Hulu does, like their showing ads for networks even on the "Ad free" tier (the network contracted for it, which leads me to wonder when other networks won't leverage for the same deal), and something else that I had on my mind but just escaped me due to the late hour. Those guys all already got paid, the crew and teams, everything is taken care of. But for another season to happen enough people have to have seen it on a platform that matters to them, so the only thing that really matters is the metrics.
Of course, if you're HBO even that doesn't matter and it can be all thrown out anyway... so...
to digital archival I go
So, please read this as serious and no ulterior-motivation.
I'm hoping to release a game in a few years, and naturally I would like to sell it.
I am also supportive of this community and understand somewhat about the release date underground release.
I'd rather either get the revenue from my work directly, or give it away in exchange for donations, trade, or even nothing at all.
All this especially in light of how often independent creators get their shit stolen by megacorps.
Is there something I should be keeping an eye out for, or preparing for so everything goes smoothly at least with regards to this community?
On the 6th of May, 2028, travel to 2 Augusta Hills Drive, Bakersfield, Kern County, California, United States. At exactly 4 PM local time, place an orange traffic cone on top of the nearest garbage can and await further instructions.
This better not be another attempt to reach me about my car's extended warranty, godamnit!
Who cares. Piracy is its own thing. People will still do it and creators will still hate it whether it's classified as "stealing" or not.
I wasn't gonna buy it anyways. Unless I'm a big fan. Then I'll buy it. But it needs to be a decent price and the merch has to be worth it.
Depends on who you define as "the original owner"
Now you know corporations and government departments will lie to children to benefit the ownership class and harm the labor class.
Let your kids know who authorities really work for, to question everything.
Heck, let the grown-ups know too. Many didn't get the memo.
Depends on how you define stealing.
If you say it's taking something away from the original owner then you're right, but if you say it's not paying your share of the costs of a good you're using then you're wrong. E.g. if you go to a concert and don't pay the entrance fee then the concert will probably still happen, but you're not reimbursing the artists and crew for their costs and effort.
Yeah, but then the "tax optimization" done by the wealthy is grand theft.
Well you should probably use the actual definition. Copying information is never stealing. Whether or not piracy is ethical is a debate you can engage in if you want, but either way, it's still not theft. Words have meanings.
Concert would be something like theft of service. Lights, etc, aren't free.
Copying something is nothing more than copyright infringement, period.
Calling it stealing is disingenuous, at best.
"Stealing" requires a tangible item which would otherwise be sold.
Take someone to court and charge them with theft for copying a CD, and see how fast the judge throws it out (hint: it would never make it before a judge).
Stealing is theft, or in US law larceny, which is very clearly defined. Copying does not meet this definition, hence why copyright infringement is a separate offense.
Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil offense (except commercial copyright infringement, which can be reached if the value exceeds $1,000 - lobbyists worked hard to criminalise what normal citizens were doing and had success in this point, while they still get away with fleecing everyone, both artists and end users).
There's nothing morally wrong with the hypothetical concert goer in my opinion. Maybe my opinion is radical but i don't think there's any morality in buying things either.
Hell i'll go a step further! I think unless you're stealing from a fellow citizen take that shit bro/sis. Ill cheer you on.
Too much wage theft out there for me to give a fuck about some kid stealing a PlayStation from a walmart
I think we need to separate giving a fuck from morally wrong. I know that even stealing from Walmart is morally wrong because two wrongs don't make a right as the old saying goes, but more importantly, by living in this society and reaping its benefits, we agree to abide by its rules too. Justification is way too easy of an exercise to have any bearing on what's acceptable.
That being said...I also don't even give a fraction of a fuck about someone stealing from Walmart.
We can admit that something is wrong without caring if it's enforced or not. Kind of like solo drivers being in the carpool lane. Wrong? Yes. Care? Not a chance. They've made their own risk/reward calculations in each case.
Well said. There is a difference between them, but as for me i truly separate the idea of "morality" from the buying and selling (or stealing) of goods. I don't think it's wrong, at all.
Stealing from your fellows is a separate issue.
I’m with @the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works here, I had no idea I had a radical opinion but I also don’t think theft of physical goods is morally wrong.
“If what you seek ain’t free, then steal it. If it ain’t necessity, you don’t need it. Just leave what’s left for those who come next.”
But in this analogy, wouldn’t it be that somebody is going to a concert and not paying? Or am I misunderstanding the analogy?
You're right. Here's the difference though. With "piracy" they can estimate how many copies have been "stolen" and deduct that from their taxable income.
U got some sauce for that?
Its called "shrink", and retailers handle theft exactly like so. If the labels and publishers haven't thought to claim such losses on their taxes, then they need new lawyers.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515
Theft loss.
From your source verbatim, emphasis mine:
Piracy of digital media would not meet that threshold set by the IRS. If any media publisher is deducting this type of “loss” from their taxes it sure reads like they’re committing tax fraud.
Pirates love to use a definition of "theft" that puts the entire definition on the victim, instead of their own actions. They use definitions like "depriving the original owner", instead of "taking what doesn't belong to them".
The legal definition definitely involves physical objects being removed from their owners possession though.
Who cares? Why the reach for moral superiority? I don't have an issue with stealing IP. Because the concept of IP is stupid. But I'm not going to rub myself off over what to call it.
Where can I copy one of those pins? That's badass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
To those insisting on the wrong idea: how can you argue with the catchy lyrics of this song?! =P
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Image from https://invidious.flokinet.to/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 by Nina Paley
It's especially true if you do it for archival copies of content you've already purchased.
Why would you bother unless you feel you've taken something from the creator that you feel you need to atone for in some way? If you don't feel you stole it, you surely don't owe the creators anything, you deserve the content you attained without payment just the same as someone that paid money for the same content.
The world doesn't (need to) run on giving only what you owe. People donate to creators not through moral obligation, but because they like what the creator has made and they want to reward them for it and/or enable them to make more of it.
Why do you think Patreon (and others) is so popular? Any cynic would surely point out that from a purely transactional outlook, the donors are getting a bad deal. And yet.
Tbh, I was just trying to point out that being grateful is possible. In the same way that you return a smile, or give some money when buying goods or services in a context of a solidarity event. For example the other day people were selling hotdogs for "pay what you want" whole raising money for refugee kids. That's how I approach this, copying/ piracy is "pay what you want" (to creators, not platforms). They made some effort to create it, yes. You are not taking anything from them. Nonetheless, you can express economically your gratitude for what they did. Like, homage to celebs.
OTT providers would withdraw as many choices. Piracy would preseve content you purchased.
AntiAI bros raging at this
I used to make music with a band. We had studio rent, transportation costs, etc. We would mostly break even on gigs between all our expenses. In the rare event we profited from a gig, it went back into the band. As a whole, we were losing money.
If someone pirated the music that I spent hours working on in the space I paid rent for, I am absolutely losing a sale that could really have helped me out and, with enough of them, even let us maybe do it full time. I was always fine with people wanting to try before buying, but liking and listening to the music we spent a ton of time and money to make and not paying me anything is shitty as a small band. Your argument basically ends with "BuT WE'rE PaYinG You In ExPOSure!!!!" which is always shit.
You are assuming they would have bought your music had pirating not been an option instead of just going without
I understand the feeling.
But when someone buys music from you and then puts it in house parties for tens of other people, those people are also listening to your music without paying.
And a lot of people these days will never pay for a specific artist's music.
They'll use a streaming service like Spotify, which barely pays anything to small artists (especially when free users listen to the music, and not premium users).
But I can use Spotify for free, listen to small artists' music, share it with other people, and it will be considered legal and "ok".
And personally, whatever I pirate, I wouldn't have bought in the first place without being able to try it. So it isn't a lost sale.
True, but that doesn't grant them a copy they can play anytime. This is also why I've always been fine with listening before buying.
I can also buy a CD and if I live with family members / roomates, share it and let them play it whenever they want without them paying for it.
Or let people copy it.
But did actually anyone actually pirate your music? Like is your music on a torrent indexer or shared on a site specific to music?
Pasting my comment fron elsewhere"
Now ill add,
I learned everything i know off of being able to have free access to near infinite music. Any genre, any style, all available to be perused. My tastes were able to expand, my mind was allowed to be opened. All bc i could listen to anything i wanted to for free when affording any legal music was not possible.
Ive done the band shtick too, and i honestly put more time, money, and effort into my craft now as i have to do all instruments largely by myself. Everything i do is bc of my tastes and ability to listen to more music than i could ever handle. Anything i make is a result of that. Itd be hypocritical of me to try and deny others what has made me "successful" (able to make whatever music i wanna make). Even if i did seek commercial avenues of putting my shit out, i would still not stand opposed to piracy. Piracy is why i ever got to this point in the first place.
Eta: and for the record, when it wasnt pirated, it was listening to shit uploaded to YT. More free music that allowed me to broaden my horizens without worrying about money.
Do you know that though? Is someone going to buy a song just to listen to it? There's no guarantee that they would have bought it in the first place. Also, piracy literally can increase the exposure to your music and can lead to measurably increased sales. In fact, the YouTuber penguinz0 talked about how piracy actually helped sell more copies of his comic series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJVCDD2lhH0
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=jJVCDD2lhH0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You're sharing a correct sentiment, but completely missing the point.
Your artistic work has value and you should be in the condition of making art while taking care of yourself economically. This is definitively true. Don't assume the only possible way to achieve that is to gatekeep your otherway easily replicable art (which is sad and completely agains art's purpose if you want my opinion). It may be the most viable way now, but it's not the only one (and it's not working great, as your example underline).
It's the same for tipping colture, if you want a parallel situation to look from outside. Is absolutely criminal that full-time worker has to rely on a mandatory charity donation in order to survive and we should all be against that. The worker could say "I need the tips couse I can't afford live without it, so if you are against tipping you are hurting me", which is the same things you are saying about yourself.
Keep huffing that copium. Everyone knows piracy is at best a morally grey area in our modern capitalist society. Some of us accept that and pirate anyway, others need to hide behind word definitions because they can't live with the idea that they're not the good guy.
Lol, love hearing this moronic argument. If you had the magical ability to point at an object and clone it out of thin air, that also wouldn't be stealing.
If I pointed at a Rolex on a person's wrist and magically an identical copy of that watch appeared on my wrist, nothing was stolen, because nobody was deprived of anything. The net amount of that thing in the world only increased, and nobody was dispossessed of their property.
I hope you've never walked past a concert venue and heard some of the music being performed without being in the venue, otherwise by your logic, you are literally a thief who robbed that artist of their intellectual property and should be arrested and imprisoned. At the very least, made to pay restitution to the artist and record company for the cost of the music you "stole" from them.
Miss me with that bullshit.
I'm not OP, but i think you're being intentionally simple-minded here...
So following your argument further, if we all did this no one would produce anything because they'd never get paid.
Then what?
The point is, there's hundreds of hours of work in most things. What you're saying makes sense if we're taking about a shitty NFT that was 'someone drawing their cat in MS Paint', but an album or movie that involved many people and lots of labour is different because they deserve to be compensated for their work.
Back to your example, no one measurers songs heard in the seconds they were experienced and seeing the performance is probably the key part if we were breaking it down... Waking past a venue isn't taking in the show (sneaking in and getting the full experience would be. Admittedly, of it's an outdoor venue the example gets muddier!)
So, what I'm arguing, is that what's morally wrong about piracy is not fairly compensating the workers that produced it. They deserve their time and expertise to be traded for (sorry, in not finding the words I'm wanting...) and that's where the theft lies
The idea that everything must have a profit motive behind it or nobody would do it is a Capitalist myth.
In most cases of large scale production, the vast majority of people involved are already compensated for their labor. Ironically, often it is the artist/group themselves that don't receive compensation directly for their work, but as a conditional percentage based on overall profitability of the parent label corporation, (who are near universally nasty, scummy, and exploitative.)
Doing labor is not a sufficient condition for compensation. If it were, I could go through parking lots, washing people's cars while they are inside, and then present them a bill for my labor. Then, if they refused to pay, I could take them to court for "stealing" my labor from me by enjoying a freshly washed car and not paying the bill.
I could create artwork and demand people buy it from me to compensate me for all the labor I put into making it. Both examples are obviously ridiculous, because while labor very well may be a necessary condition for compensation, it isn't a sufficient condition.
You admit that my concert example, at least in certain circumstances works. Which means that it proves my argument. If consuming content without compensation is actually stealing, then people walking past and listening to some of the music in a concert are literally thieves and should be arrested and forced to pay restitution. A ridiculous conclusion to the vast majority of people, even, I would wager, to many anti-piracy folks.
I advocate compensating artists for their work if you can and if the artist is independent. I think its morally wrong to support the current exploitative entertainment structure by willingly paying for services and products that are designed to abuse the consumer and in many cases, the very artists that are under their banner.
You also never addressed my Rolex example, which is basically a perfect analogy to how digital media is replicated IRL.
You also ignore the idea that an action can become morally right in and of itself depending of the motive. Piracy itself can be an act of protest to support proper orientation of the markets and social norms around the creation and distribution of art.
History is filled with activists engaging in what was illegal and considered immoral at the time, but we look back on their actions now as good and upright. Just because many pirates are nerds that post dank memes doesn't delegitimize their actions.
Labor rights activists a century ago read Socialist theory and distributed cartoons and media mocking rich tycoons and abusive bosses. In other words, they were also nerds that posted dank memes.
I'd love to be able to actually discuss this, because a wall of text isn't at conducive to healthy discussion.
Your concert example is frankly ridiculous. A better one is people sneaking in without paying. Overhearing a few minutes of muffled bars of music does not compare with going to the show - what nonsense! That you claim it proves your point, well... You're dreaming.
Not a wall of text, I spent quite a bit of time carefully breaking down all of my points by numbered section.
If it's too much work for you to go through my post and address each point like I have been doing for yours, then I don't think we have much else to discuss.
One last question: Is it wrong for you to go to a bookstore, read a book, and put it back on the shelf without buying it? What about reading just 75% of it? 50%? How about just the first chapter to see if you like it? Or do you think it would be wrong to even skim the first page without buying it?
I don't have the energy to dissect your 20 part manifesto, sorry.I appreciate the effort, but got lost in the bullet points (the un-bulleted things felt like responses to the bullet and I wondered who you were replying to). It all felt like the crazed conspiracy theorist meme, sorry. I'm on a phone and it's such a shitty interface to wade through complex argument
As for books - No way, it's not wrong at all, and I regularly pirate music before I buy it, for example. We're not that different, I'm probably just accepting more 'guilt' for what I pirate.
Do you agree that physical goods are a whole different set of circumstances to abstract things? (As in, how the rolex is fundamentally different to the concert experience)
To each their own I guess.
So if you think the book example is fine even reading the whole thing and never paying for it, how is that any different from any other piracy examples? You consumed media that the artist created in its entirety without giving them any compensation.
I agree that physical goods are totally different, but in my magical wizard example, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
A real life example is if I take a digital scan of a 3D figurine, turn it into a 3D model, and let other people on the web download it and 3D print it.
Did I "steal" anything? Of course not. Nobody is being deprived of anything at all.
See with books, that's where out gets complicated. I don't agree that reading part of the book is a problem, but the whole book does count as piracy to me. I do admit I don't know where the line is crossed. It's great the way libraries skirt around this problem and I don't really know how that fits in the broader scheme.
Perhaps another great idea is a magazine where there's really only one or two articles of interest - in my mind, have at it and consume what's of interest without shelling out for the whole thing (this is a lot like time-shifting, where recording content played on the air at a certain but inconvenient time is absolutely fair use).
Format shifting via a 3d scanner is fine but uploading to for others is where it's problematic - personal use has always abominated various liberties, I felt.
Great thought experiments, cheers
You are literally saying this on Lemmy. A piece of software that is developed for free using other software/tools that are free, and run on servers that are hosted by others for free. Most open source projects work this way. People are fully capable of doing things because they want to. Not everything needs to be profit-driven.
If we all did this, what would happen is there would be way less slop and lazy cash-grabs. Because the only people left making things would be the ones who are actually passionate and believe in what they do.
...and crucially, don't NEED to be paid for their work.
Yes, FOSS is 'a thing', but it doesn't require complicated and expensive things like sets, locations and recording studios - because code is entirely abstract, it doesn't have these constraints.
Yes, there will still be the occasional thing from a passionate story-teller, but without the budget to ensure the appearances are as intended we'll be far more limited in what stories we can tell (however, I'd gladly live in a universe without the constant marvel drivel!). We'd still be excited about 70s era star trek-type stuff, not the recent Dune movies...
While there's certainly shitty cash grabs going on, there's still passionate story tellers and the reason everything these days is shitty cash grabs is because we're all pirating everything the studios won't take a risk on a genuine story
Your entire counter-argument is based on a strawman. I never said piracy was stealing. I said piracy is, at best, morally grey.
If you live in a society in which people make a living either directly, or indirectly, through the creation and sale of goods and services and you willingly choose to avoid paying for access to these goods and services whilst still using them as if you had paid for access to them, you are operating in, at best, a moral grey area. This societal system relies on people paying for access to goods and services to either directly or indirectly support the lives of others. When people choose to circumvent payment, others suffer financially and that impacts their quality of life. Whether that's a direct loss of a sale for an independent musician, or a staffer who loses their journalism job at a media company that operates on a subscription model everyone just bypasses, piracy does hurt people. Pretending it doesn't, or that it's all okay because of some "REEEEEEEEE CAPITALISM" whataboutism is juvenile.
I pirate a lot of stuff but I do so with the understanding that it is a selfish act that benefits me at the expense of others living within this society. I do not celebrate it, nor do I pretend I am the good guy fighting against the bad guys in some war of freedom. You can live in mental gymnastics land if you want, just don't be surprised when other people point out how delusional you are.
You're initial closing statement criticizes people for "...hiding behind word definitions..." when the OP's post is arguing that copying is not Stealing.
It's very telling that your criticisms aren't ever leveled at the system itself, but instead, the people who object to how it is structured.
You frame yourself as a pragmatist who just operates honestly, never raising issue with the exploitative and often abusive practices of these corpos, record labels, executives. I never said piracy doesn't hurt anyone, I said it isn't theft.
Piracy hurts exploitative corpos the most, which is a good thing. It's good to cause harm to evil structures and subvert their authority and power. That's literally the point of social activism.
The fact that some well-meaning and innocent folks are going to get caught in the crossfire is sad, but such is the cost of subverting abusive power structures. Remember, pirates never created those structures, the corpos, billionaires, and corrupt politicians did.
I respect some pirates, I despise others. I tip or buy merch from small time artists whenever I can, often far more than they would have gotten from me buying their art, and far far more than if I streamed their song a few times of Spotify, YT Music, or dutifully watched an ad that played on their channel.
Piracy can be done in an ethical way, or an unethical way, but it's certainly not, "at best, morally grey."
You better go out and buy fast food at every drive-thru you can find, you not buying food from them might contribute to lower sales for that chain, which could lose those workers their jobs. Obviously that's ridiculous, but that argument uses the same reasoning you just used. If your argument is true, then you're a morally grey person at best if you aren't spending as much money as possible on fast food every month, or any other good/service in existence for that matter.
And there it is. The “REEEEEEEEE CAPITALISM” whataboutism, as predicted. Congratulations on instantly living up to the stereotype of the "ethical piracy" activist lol
Nice thoughtful response to my comment, really compelling points!
Oh wait, you couldn't think of any refutations to my arguments, so you just resorted to an ad hominem.
Weak and disappointing. Go somberly stare at your torrenting client, thinking of all the people you're putting out on the streets by "stealing" from them, your darkened and evil soul too corrupted by piracy to ever be redeemed. Lol get over yourself.
What else is there to respond to? You started off by once again trying to frame my original comment as debating the definition of "stealing", even though I have never once done that. Then you went into the stereotypical rant of "CORPOS BAD CAPITALISM BAD" and tried to frame yourself as a reluctant hero who pirates for the greater good. You literally proved my point that piracy directly and indirectly hurts people when you said that "innocent people get caught in the crossfire" but then tried to hand wave the moral implications of this away. And then you finished off with yet another moronic analogy, this time about...fast food (???????). It was so nonsensical that I can't even begin to guess the point you were trying to make. You seem to be trying and failing miserably to catch me in some moral hypocrisy gotcha, which is bizarre considering you are the one claiming that piracy is morally good and ethical.
Yeahhh, obvious you don't have anything left to say.
You disputed the OP's post where they stated that piracy wasn't stealing by claiming that people like them "needed to hide behind word definitions"
Corpos are bad, Capitalism is bad...yes, I stand by those statements because they are true.
Yes, it would be better for society at large if everybody pirated from the corpos and stopped funding their monopolistic, anti-consumer, anti-repair, privacy-violating practices. Again, yes this is true, I stand by that, that's the definition of "greater good."
Never hand waved the moral implications away of innocent people getting hurt by piracy. What I actually did was contrast the moral bad of that harm, against the moral good of harming the corpos that abuse society at large. I determined that the overall moral good of harming the corpos outweighed the moral bad of harming innocents. I also pointed out the fact that the real harm has been perpetrated by the Capitalists, billionaires, and big media conglomerates, not the pirates.
You obviously lack the ability or at least the willingness to address my counterexample about what your philosophy entails. The fact that you thought that was an analogy instead of what it actually was, (a reductio ad absurdum) demonstrates that.
I don't need to try, you clearly haven't thought very hard or deep about your position, it's shallow and filled with knee-jerk argumentation.
I suspect strongly that you feel very guilty about your actions, and instead of addressing those feelings, you project them onto others.
I think you do this because you cannot stand the idea that other people pirate things guilt-free, you are jealous of them, so you project your own feelings of shame onto those other people and claim (without any compelling reasons), that those people aren't actually guilt-free, they are just lying to themselves to deal with the shame.
You rage and seethe at those with a clear sense of purpose and vision because you lack those things in your own endeavors, and it galls you.
Such a shallow take, I think if you can’t afford the commercial software then there’s a whole ecosystem of FOSS you should be using instead. Way too much outstanding free software in the world to bother with piracy! My two cents is I don’t want to go anywhere that I’m not welcome, and if you can’t bother to pay the devs then you’re probably not welcome
Yeah, for games too? Every software I use is FOSS, except games and DAWs, because alternatives don't exist. Same for pirating specific music and TV shows.
You don’t think the people who make the games deserve your support? There is no need to play a game, you want to do it. You won’t lose your livelihood if you don’t launch Steam today get real. So if you desire the software, and they are asking for money, you really ought to honor that. Most game devs are just trying to make it like the rest of us, it’s not right to just take and take. Why do you think you’re owed stuff for free? It’s like you feel justified in stealing from Walmart because you’re broke. This argument that it doesn’t hurt anyone is irrelevant and not accurate. It’s one thing to not activate Windows, but I think most people on Steam need the money
I do pay for games. I was just contesting your statement that there ate FOSS alternatives for everything.
I see, I guess my thought there is you don't need video games to work or earn a living, a video game is a luxury and luxuries aren't worth compromising integrity over. In fairness to all of you guys, I did my fair share of piracy when I was a kid, my sense is that as soon as you can afford software your tune suddenly changes because App Stores are a lot easier than whatever the kids are doing these days